Nam neobhodimo, chtoby vojny ne davali territorial'nyh vygod. Eto pereneset vojnu na ekonomicheskuju pochvu, na kotoroj nacii ubedjatsja v tom, chto preobladanie zavisit ot _nashej pomoshhi_, a takoe polozhenie veshhej otdast obe storony v rasporjazhenie nashej internacional'noj agentury, obladajushhej millionami glaz, vzorov, ne pregrazhdennyh nikakimi granicami... Togda nashi internacional'nyja prava sotrut vse narodnyja prava i budut imi pravit' tak, kak grazhdanskoe ] Thus it is seen that Butmi, publishing his version of the “protocols” in 1907, two years after the Nilus version had appeared, changed the text to suit his purposes. In 1905, before the first Russian revolution, the Nilus version of the “protocols” said “_we will show one of them our strength by means of violence, that is, by terrorism_.” After the revolution, Butmi changed this sentence to read “_We have shown one of these governments our powers by assassination, by terrorism_.” And now the introducers of the “protocols” in this country and in Europe are pointing to bolshevism as the fulfillment of the “documents” which have been concocted, elaborated and changed by antisemites to serve the devious political purposes of their masters and their own. The “protocols” came into the world with the trademark, “made in Germany” and were elaborated under the auspices of the “Russian Black Hundreds” in their efforts to save the dying Russian autocracy. When the Russian autocracy was overthrown and members of the “Black Hundreds” were scattered in various lands, their financial and “moral” support shattered, they set out in quest of new sources of income. They are now resorting to their old discredited methods in a new environment and thus the poison of the Russian Black Hundreds is being spread in England, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and even in this country. The voice is the voice of dead despotic Russia, and the hand is the hand of the same “Black Hundreds.” And now cowardly anonymous writers are embellishing the “protocols,” adding new lies to the old ones, making accusations against the Jews that even Nilus-Lutostansky-Butmi dared not make in darkest Russia. Perhaps some day these new legends and absurd, malicious myths may evolve into a new and revised edition of secret Jewish “protocols.” In periods of turmoil and unrest such venomous fabrications may gain credence among the ignorant and may poison their minds. But, like all anti-semitic myths of old, the new anti-Jewish legends are bound to destroy themselves. A lie shuns the sunlight. It thrives in darkness. It cannot survive analysis. The truth will prevail.